Should docs be Subjective or Objective?

[WideShot]

I have this conversation all the time with people.

Subjective: The purpose of a documentary is to show an opinion, story or agenda, as it relates to that one story alone, so long as it is based in fact. This could be an interview with one person as they relate their story, or following one story as it encounters a situation. As in, it is not necessary to give a voice to counter-opinions, surrounding stories, or any other wider-scope approach, all that is important is the subject's story, opinion, or agenda. An example would be if one documented the Presidential Election and based the entire documentary from a particular candidate/campaign solely. This is an approach that tells the story of the subject.

Objective: This is a more absolutist approach, which values the objective view of the situation or issue being discussed as a whole, offering all sides a voice, although not necessarily in equal proportion. An example of this would be if one covered the Presidential Election, the documentary would focus on several, most or all of the candidates, and would objectively present their opinions/facts leading to election. This is an approach that tells the story of the situation, issue, or tries to aim for the the truth as a whole.

Please vote with which option your opinion most heavily leans towards.

 

[John@Bophe]

I just voted "objective" but as I think about it -- I'm not so sure. Some very compelling documentaries have been clearly subjective. I guess if you want to present a subjective documentary, it is okay as long as you don't try to pass it off as being an objective view.

 

[Beeblebrox]

I don't have a preference. I like both, although I've seen very very few actual objective documentaries. One could argue that all documentaries are inherently subjective, since a filmmaker must make editorial choices that are going to show the audience what he/she wants them to see.

I don't have an issue with subjective documentaries as long as the actual facts they present are accurate or true.

 

[Spatula]

There's no way to be completely objective, simply because everything in the world is just a subdivision of a more complex system.

Eg. A documentary on the presidential elections covering all the candidates. Does it focus on the actual people running, or the issues? How deep does it go into the issues? If it's covering their views on, say, the war in Iraq... can you present the history of Iraq, America and any other determining influential countries (Iran, Syria, Jordan, Israel, Britain, etc), regional religions, ideologies, economic cycles, natural geography, as well as an accurate and unbiased presentation of all the factors that led to the war, are present in the occupation, and would be present in the event of the politicians viewpoints being implemented... with evidence and expert opinion to back up this unbiased coverage?
And furthermore, if you really wanted to present a completely objective views of any particular war, you'd have to look at the history of war itself, human nature, human psychology, the nature of government, economic principles, etc.

You can't put all that into one doc without making it at least a 25-day long affair. Therefore, you can in actuality NEVER be objective about ANYTHING, because by necessity you have to limit (or pick and choose) the information that is most relevant to your subject.

If you do a documentary on the migration of the African Swallow and it doesn't include information on the planet's weather systems, as well as any other birds or animals that influence it, it can be said to be skewed. Therefore, even if a documentary CLAIMS to be objective, it isn't. Human beings can't be objective, because we are not a uniform species. Since opinions and viewpoints are all as individually subjective as the subject itself, there's really no way to actually BE objective. You can TRY, but you can never achieve it, with little exception. Also, African Swallows are non-migratory.

Therefore, I'd say that making a doc would be like making an essay- you make a thesis, find the points that back-up the thesis, acknowledge any objections that counter your thesis (and hopefully counter them) and then try your best to show one view point.

Leave it up to other documentary-makers to do their own subjective doc if they disagree. But at least try to be as objective AS POSSIBLE.

A good example is Quantum Physics. If you observe the position of something on the quantum scale, it changes it's speed. If you measure the speed, it changes position. If the matter is AWARE that it is being observed, it actually behaves differently.
If people know they are on camera in an interview, they act differently. If people don't know they are being observed, you can see their actions but not their thoughts. If you record their opinions, their actions may change. If you record their actions, their opinions change to justify themselves.

Therefore- subjective is the way to go, with keeping objectivity as an unachievable but desirable goal.

 

[knightly]

This has been an argument in Anthropology and Archaeology since the beginnings of the two fields...it is still unresolved and will probably continue to be for the forseeable future.

 

[barnaclelapse]

I like both as well.

I guess it depends on the subject matter.

And objective is obviously the more potentially dangerous of the two.